ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v PETER MCROBERTS [2026] SASC 12

Applicant: ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) Counsel: MS E HARPER - Solicitor: CROWN SOLICITOR (SA) Respondent: PETER MCROBERTS Counsel: MR A EY - Solicitor: MANGAN EY & ASSOCIATES Hearing Date/s: 30/01/2026 File No/s: SCCRM-25-027058, SCCRM-25-027060 B SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Criminal: Application) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v MCROBERTS [2026] SASC 12 Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice B Doyle 6 February 2026 CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS The applicant’s index offending comprises sexual offences against a young girl in the early 1990s and a young boy in the mid 1990s. He was subsequently convicted of sexual offending against three children in the mid 2000s and served a lengthy term of imprisonment in Victoria. Upon his release he was made subject to a supervision order under Victorian legislation. After a period of between nine and ten months he was extradited to South Australia and convicted and sentenced in respect of the index offending. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years with effect from 12 February 2021. That sentence expires on 11 February 2026. The applicant’s applications for an indefinite detention order under s 57 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) or alternatively for an extended supervision order under s 7 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (‘HRO Act’) will not be able to be determined before 11 February 2026 because only one of the two medical reports contemplated by s 57 of the Sentencing Act has been prepared. The applicant seeks an interim detention order under the Sentencing Act or alternatively an interim supervision order under the HRO Act. Any interim order is likely to operate for around four or perhaps five months. The respondent consents to an interim supervision order and appears to have stable accommodation available to him for the period of any interim order. He opposes the imposition of an interim detention order, contending that in the 20 or so years since his last offending, he has engaged with all rehabilitation programs made available to him and has developed insight and some protective mechanisms against future offending. He contends that the delay in the preparation of a second report is unsatisfactory. He submits the risk assessments relied on by the applicant do not address the protection provided by a supervision order. -- 1 of 16 -- Held: 1. whilst, on the material before the Court, there is a serious question to be tried as to whether an indefinite detention order should ultimately be made, the Court is not satisfied that an interim detention order should be made at this time; 2. an interim supervision order should be made. Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 7; Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) s 57; Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic), referred to. Attorney-General (SA) v DO [2026] SASC 10, discussed. -- 2 of 16 -- ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v MCROBERTS [2026] SASC 12 Criminal 1 B DOYLE J: The applicant seeks an order that the respondent be detained until further order pursuant to s 57(3) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) on the basis that he is incapable of controlling, or unwilling to control, his sexual instincts. In the alternative, the applicant seeks an extended supervision order (‘ESO’) pursuant to the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (‘HRO Act’). 2 The applications before the Court were filed on 8 July 2025. On 30 July 2025 directions were made for two legally qualified medical practitioners to inquire and report in respect of the respondent pursuant to s 57(6) of the Sentencing Act, and for a prescribed health professional to inquire and report pursuant to s 7(3)(a) of the HRO Act. 3 Only one medical report has been received. At the time of the hearing before me last week, the applicant’s information was that the respondent had yet to be allocated, and therefore had not been interviewed by, a second medical practitioner. The respondent’s sentence for his index offending will expire on 11 February 2026. 4 In those circumstances, the applicant seeks an interim detention order under the Sentencing Act or, in the alternative, an interim supervision order under the HRO Act. 5 The latter is not opposed, with the consequence that the former application falls to be considered in a context where, if the respondent is not detained on an interim basis, he will be subject to supervision in the community. Evidence 6 The facts and circumstances relevant to this application are contained in the following materials tendered without objection: • affidavit of Emily Jean Harper affirmed 7 July 2025; • affidavit of Emily Jean Harper affirmed 30 December 2025; • reports of Dr Catherine Barnett (formerly Crouch) for the purposes of the Sentencing Act and HRO applications dated 20 November 2025; and • addendum report of Dr Barnett dated 22 December 2025. 7 As will be explained, subsequent to the hearing, I was provided with a further affidavit relied upon by the respondent, which I will receive on the application. -- 3 of 16 -- [2026] SASC 12 B Doyle J 2 Background 8 The respondent is a 55 year old man who has spent much of the last 20 years in custody. He was primarily raised by his mother, with his father away for extended periods of time due to gambling debts and a criminal lifestyle. The respondent suffered a head injury when he was four years old. This resulted in significant speech difficulties and consequential embarrassment and feelings of rejection by his parents. He has said that he felt more comfortable around children through his life due to a lack of attachment with adults whilst he was young. 9 The respondent also reports having been sexually abused when he was eight years old by his paternal step-grandfather. He has said that this event and the aftermath of it caused him to lose trust in adults and withdraw further. 10 He left school halfway through year 11 and began working as an apprentice chef. He reports not having had many friends and that his one friend in adolescence died in a car crash some years ago. Index and later offending 11 The index offending, which renders the respondent a person to whom s 57 of the Sentencing Act applies, saw the respondent sentenced on 28 July 2023 for a period of five years with effect from 12 February 2021, being the date he was taken into custody in this State following his extradition from Victoria. I will return to the offending in Victoria which occurred and resulted in the respondent being convicted and sentenced in that State. The Victorian offending occurred after the index offending occurred, but before the respondent was convicted and sentenced in respect of it in this State. 12 The index offending occurred in the 1990’s. The respondent was then in his twenties. The offending with respect to the first victim (MS) occurred between 26 November 1991 and 1 April 1992 when she was aged six or seven years old. The respondent knew the victim through his involvement with the Glenelg Scouts where he had a friendship with the victim’s father. The respondent held a position of trust. On an occasion when he visited the victim’s family home, the respondent tickled her upper body while she sat on his lap. The victim felt what she later understood to be his erect penis while she sat on the respondent’s lap. This was uncharged offending that the sentencing judge considered was a deliberate attempt to make the victim comfortable with being touched by him. The charged offending occurred on a subsequent visit when the respondent suggested to the victim’s father that he drive the victim to buy seafood. The victim took MS in his car and touched her down the front of her underpants for a period whilst stopped at a tram crossing. 13 The second victim (DD) was abused by the respondent between 5 December 1995 and 9 April 1997, whilst he was between eight and 10 years old. The respondent got to know the victim through his involvement at a Joey and Cub Pack and Scout Troop where he was an assistant and later scout leader. DD’s mother was also a scout leader. He formed a friendship with DD’s mother and assisted -- 4 of 16 -- [2026] SASC 12 B Doyle J 3 her with the administrative arrangements and the running of the scout group. The respondent also ran a fish and chip shop where DD and his family would sometimes attend. The respondent sometimes gave DD and his sibling lollies, cash and cigarettes for helping at the shop. 14 On an occasion when the respondent visited the victim’s home, he offered to give DD a body massage. This (unaccepted) offer was considered by the sentencing judge to be predatory and grooming behaviour. On a later occasion, the respondent took DD and his brother fishing. Whilst DD was standing near the water in his underpants, he ran his hand down the victim’s body and towards the back of his underpants. He placed his other hand in the front and fondled the victims’ genitals and buttocks several times. 15 The respondent subsequently moved to Victoria. There he committed a number of sexual offences which I will briefly summarise. 16 On 28 February 2006, the respondent was convicted of three counts of an indecent act with a child under the age of 16. The conduct occurred in 2004. The victim was the respondent’s then-fiancé’s nine year old nephew. The respondent exposed the victim’s penis twice and masturbated the victim’s penis on two separate occasions. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with a non- parole period of 12 months. 17 On 30 October 2008, the respondent was convicted of eight counts of incest by a step-parent and six counts of an indecent act with a child under 16 years of age. The respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years with a non-parole period of nine years and six months. 18 The victims of this offending were a male and female, both of whom were children of a woman with whom the respondent was in a relatively short de facto relationship. Whilst it is not entirely clear from the redacted sentencing remarks of the Victorian County Court judge, the offending appears to have occurred between around 2003 and around early 2006. 19 The offending in relation to the male victim involved touching the victim’s penis both over and under clothing, performing an act of fellatio on the victim and causing the victim to perform acts of fellatio on him, and penetrating the victim’s anus with his penis. The male victim was in his early teens at the time. 20 The offending in relation to the female victim occurred when she was 11 years old. It involved rubbing the victim’s vagina over her clothing and two separate occasions when he penetrated her vagina with his penis. 21 The respondent’s term of imprisonment expired in April 2020. At that time, he was made the subject of a supervision order under Victorian legislation.1 He resided with other persons subject to supervision orders subject to stringent 1 Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic). -- 5 of 16 -- [2026] SASC 12 B Doyle J 4 restrictions at a gated community outside Ararat until, in February 2021, he was extradited to this State to face charges in relation to the index offending.2 He did not offend or breach the terms of his conditions during that period of nine or 10 months. 22 To summarise then, the respondent’s sexual offending took place in the 1990’s, and then in the first half of the 2000’s. He has not offended since around 2006 and has been in custody for most of the subsequent period. He was only briefly in the community in 2007 and then in the period from April 2020 to early 2021. It follows he has not engaged in sexual offending for approximately 20 years. This was a matter emphasised by the respondent’s counsel. Rehabilitation, treatment and risk assessments 23 Between August 2017 and April 2018, the respondent completed the Better Lives Program (‘BLP’) whilst incarcerated for the second bracket of offending in Victoria. The program is a group-based intervention that is aimed at addressing sexual offending behaviour. It involved his attendance at 50 bi-weekly sessions which were approximately three hours in duration. 24 A post-treatment report stated that the respondent had developed increased insight into the factors contributing to his offending, but that he appeared to display some continued difficulty recognising risky thinking styles and distortions in his thinking without assistance. It was noted that he had developed some relevant internal and external strategies for managing unhealthy sexual urges, such as not masturbating to fantasy involving children, engaging and building confidence in adult sexual relationships, and engaging psychological help when fantasy involving children arose, but that the effectiveness of these strategies had not been tested in the community. 25 The report recommended the respondent not have any unsupervised access to children under 18 years of age, that he engage with a forensic psychologist upon his release from custody, and that he be closely managed with suitable supports in the community. 26 As the respondent’s release date neared, a detailed report for the purposes of the Victorian legislation was prepared by Ms Chan, a senior psychologist. Ms Chan concurred with the recommendations for further treatment in the BLP post treatment report but concluded that the respondent continued to present with significant risk factors for future sexual offending. The respondent was assessed as a high risk of committing a further serious sexual offence but with no propensity to commit a serious violence offence (as those expressions are defined in the Victorian legislation). 2 The Victorian supervision order is in force until 2028, although it is not operative whilst the respondent is in South Australia in custody or under supervision. -- 6 of 16 -- [2026] SASC 12 B Doyle J 5 27 Ms Chan wrote that: More generally, Mr McRoberts disclosed a long-standing history of emotional identification with children, which he attributed to his own experience of childhood sexual abuse and subsequent development of a pervasive mistrust of adults. He also identified his history of impotence as a contributing factor to his offending against children, advising he perceived children to be unconcerned by his inability to maintain an erection compared to adult sexual partners. In this context, Mr McRoberts acknowledged that his index sexual offences commenced with sexual touching of the victims on the outside of their clothing and progressed over time to involve sexual contact on the inside of their clothing and eventual penetration (or simulated penetration according to Mr McRoberts’ account) of the victims. Mr McRoberts advised that the non-detection of his initial offending, and the failure of the victims to disclose his abuse of them to others, provided him with further opportunities to sexually offend and for his abuse to escalate in severity. Mr McRoberts cautiously conceded to the author that there were occasions during the offending period when he had masturbated to sexual fantasies involving children. Mr McRoberts described how through his participation in sex offender group treatment (Better Lives Program or BLP) in 2017-2018 he had learnt that masturbating to a particular fantasy served to strengthen the fantasy so had since desisted from any sexual imagery involving underage participants. He advised that he did not want to risk sexually reoffending in the future and identified this as one strategy that he had adopted since his completion of group treatment to assist in managing his risk. Mr McRoberts’ general acceptance of culpability for the index sexual offences in the current assessment interview contrasts to previous discussions he has had with professionals regarding his offending. … In addition, Mr McRoberts referred to the insights he developed from participation in the BLP which enabled him to recognise that he had previously misinterpreted the victims’ involvement in the abuse as evidence of consent and complicity when it was, in fact, the result of more complex abuse dynamics. In this respect, Mr McRoberts demonstrated a level of insight into the ongoing risk he posed to underage children. He reflected on a few risk management strategies that he used currently and intended to expand upon his release into the community. On several occasions during the assessment interview he referred to his risk of sexual reoffending being limited to victims with whom he had an opportunity to develop relationships with over time rather than opportunistic sexual offending against unknown or stranger victims. Revealingly, Mr McRoberts repeated to the author on several occasions, ‘I’m not going to grab a random child off the street’. Mr McRoberts’ comment, irrespective of its potential accuracy, appears to reflect a promising shift from denial and externalisation of responsibility to an acceptance of culpability and a wiliness and ability, albeit rudimentary at this stage, to reflect on his behaviour in the context of risk. 28 Ms Chan undertook a risk assessment using the Static-99R and Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (‘RSVP’) and, on balance, using empirically guided clinical judgment, the respondent was placed in the high risk category for sexual re-offending. 29 Whilst subject to supervision in Victoria, the respondent participated in Level 2 of the Forensic Intervention Services, High Risk and Complex Needs (‘HRCN’) program. That involved individual treatment delivered on a twice monthly basis. He attended a total of 14 individual treatment sessions of about an -- 7 of 16 -- [2026] SASC 12 B Doyle J 6 hour duration each, between June 2020 and February 2021. He participated in each session and completed all required tasks. He presented as co-operative, agreeable and eager to discuss aspects associated with his past and motivated to reflect on treatment discussions. The senior clinician who reported on his participation in the program wrote that: [W]hilst Mr McRoberts demonstrated a level of motivation towards engaging in treatment and appeared eager to gain insight and make changes that would lead to an offence free lifestyle, he demonstrated rigid cognitive distortions and minimised his risk factors. This became evident when discussing his goal of wanting to have connections with children in the future to provide a level of mentoring. When this was explored and challenged further, Mr McRoberts tended to become somewhat emotional, highlighting that he could not envisage a lifestyle that did not include, at a minimum, relationships with family members and their children. Mr McRoberts reported that any risk would be minimised by having children’s parents’ supervision during such encounters. Mr McRoberts also tended to minimise the offending behaviours, highlighting that he did not physically force his victims into sexual abuse. Mr McRoberts’ view of consent appeared convoluted by his own experience of sexual abuse and belief that he consented and perhaps wanted/enjoyed aspects of the abuse. Mr McRoberts engaging in offence-specific treatment from a trauma informed perspective is important in this regard. 30 It is apparent from the report that the program was not completed due to the respondent’s extradition to South Australia. The nuanced nature of the extent of any progress made by the respondent is captured in the following paragraphs of the report: Treatment sessions focused on gaining an understanding of Mr McRoberts’ sexual interests and sexual attraction. Whilst Mr McRoberts initially reported having a primary sexual attraction towards adult females, he highlighted ongoing difficulties and avoidance of sexual interactions with women partners. Mr McRoberts reported that this had to do with ongoing erectile dysfunction rather than attraction. Mr McRoberts reflected that he had a sexual interest in buttocks. He reported that this was a general sexual interest that was not dependent on sex or age. He also acknowledged a sexual interest in children that he described as equally arousing to him as adult women. Mr McRoberts reported some strategies in managing his deviant sexual interest in children. He reported that he changed the channel when children were on television and used self-talk when he had thoughts about children, such as “That is too dangerous”. Mr McRoberts further reported that if he fantasised about buttocks he would look up to see the individual’s face in the fantasy and make sure it was an adult. Managing deviant sexual interest and exploring sexuality continue to be treatment recommendations. Mr McRoberts presented with a poor understanding of his risk of contact with children. He reported his hope to be able to mentor children in the future, highlighting gaining feelings of pride and connection through such activities in the past. Mr McRoberts appeared to minimise risk associated with this, highlighting that he did not sexually abuse every child that he had contact with. Following challenging, Mr McRoberts highlighted that he would manage risk by mentoring children in groups rather than one-on-one and appeared to believe that this strategy was sufficient. Throughout the current treatment episode, Mr McRoberts maintained that he was unable to meet this need in other ways, such as with adults. Mr McRoberts highlighted that he could not fathom the thought of not being able to have contact with children and that this would “wreck my life” highlighting that his main concern was that he wanted to be part of his future grandchildren’s and other family members’ lives. This remained a concern due to the associated risk of contact with children. -- 8 of 16 -- [2026] SASC 12 B Doyle J 7 This appeared associated with Mr McRoberts deviant sexual interest in children, poor self- worth and lack of confidence in maintaining adult relationships. Through exploring Mr McRoberts past intimate relationships the following themes were identified; passive communication style, use of avoidant conflict resolution skills, and sexual issues with partners (including, arousal, attraction, and performance anxiety). Building intimacy skills remained a treatment target. 31 Following his extradition the respondent was convicted and sentenced in respect of the index offending. In sentencing the respondent, Alexandrides DCJ assessed the prospects of rehabilitation as poor. I note that the Court did not have available to it a summary of any progress made by the respondent whilst subject to the Victorian supervision order. 32 Following the imposition of his sentence for the index offending, the respondent was assessed in late 2023 for his suitability to participate in the Sexual Behaviour Clinic (‘SBC’). An assessment made for that purpose was said to suggest a 40.9% risk of sexual recidivism over a five year period. This was said to equate to a high risk of sexual re-offending should he not receive treatment. The applicant’s counsel acknowledged that it was unclear whether the percentage likelihood given purported to address the risk of re-offending if the respondent was subject to the restrictions and supervision that might apply under an ESO. At all events, he was assessed as suitable for participation in the SBC commencing in January 2024. 33 The respondent successfully completed that program at Mount Gambier Prison during 2024. He attended 92% of group treatment hours as well as 17 hours of individual sessions, being absent only for court or illness reasons. In his post- treatment report, the following observations were made: As Mr McRoberts had not had the opportunity to be released into the community without strict restrictions, it is unclear what his level of motivation for compliance would be when released. Mr McRoberts reported a motivation to comply with any restrictions placed on him, including having a safety person with him at all times when leaving the home. At other times Mr McRoberts continued to report a desire to mentor children, and concerns about his life being unfulfilling if he were to avoid children for the remainder of his life. Those comments reduced as the program progressed, however, he continued to reflect being in the presence of children as a temptation or “testing” the “waters”. It was determined that Mr McRoberts had not had the opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to compliance across high-risk situations. It was possible that his compliance whilst in custody may be due to lack of access, rather than a genuine willingness to comply. Mr McRoberts consistently reported his mother’s friend Sue as a key person of emotional support, as well as her offer for him to live with her. He reported she was pro-social, had advised people around her of his offending, and would provide opportunities for him to engage in the community including attended a club for people over 50 years of age. Mr McRoberts saw this support and opportunities to engage in community as protective, particularly as no one over the age of 50 would attend and Sue had explained Mr McRoberts offending to them. However, case notes from a parole address check indicated that Sue knew about the type of offending, but not the details, and thus may not be able to accurately reflect the seriousness of his offending. In terms of professional support, Mr McRoberts stated he would like to see a psychologist upon release. However, he had not made any -- 9 of 16 -- [2026] SASC 12 B Doyle J 8 current plans to do so. It was unclear what his intention would be in seeking this support, as he often stated he would seek help when he needed “about anything”. 34 The report includes reference to Violence Risk Scale – Sexual Offence Version (‘VRS-SO’) assessments made prior to and at the conclusion of the SBC. The respondent fell within the high risk of sexual re-offending each time, but there was a modest percentage risk reduction in the five-year sexual recidivism risk. 35 The authors of the post-treatment report observed: Following treatment, Mr Roberts appeared to have moved on the majority of his dynamic risk factors from the pre-contemplation to contemplation stage. In other words, he demonstrated some awareness that his behaviours were problematic, but was yet to demonstrate motivation or an ability to enact challenges that would be relevant to address his level of risk. It was noted that should Mr McRoberts allow himself to be exposed to situations where he has access to children that he can foster relationships with, [avoid] monitoring and challenging deviant and problematic thoughts and beliefs, [provide] narratives about his offending that would encourage others to agree with his distortions and [engage] in exclusively avoidant ways of coping, then his risk of engaging in problematic behaviours, including offending, may increase. 36 The authors had a variety of recommendations depending upon whether the respondent was in the community or in custody. They considered that the respondent’s circumstances made him eligible either for indefinite detention or extended supervision. 37 By letter dated 23 April 2025, the Parole Board expressed its view that the respondent is unwilling to control his sexual instincts and should be considered for a s 57 application. In the alternative, a supervision order for a period of five years was recommended. The proposed terms did not include electronic monitoring but required weekly reporting to a supervising officer. 38 It was against that background that as earlier noted directions were made in July last year for the preparation of reports by medical practitioners. Reports of Dr Catherine Barnett 39 Dr Barnett’s report recounts her interactions with the respondent and his reflections upon past offending. The respondent informed Dr Barnett that he had not re-offended whilst subject to supervision in Victoria, but acknowledged that he always had someone with him and was never alone in the community. 40 The respondent disclosed to Dr Barnett that he continued to fantasise about underage children (his sexual preference being pre-pubescent boys, who he regarded as like a brother or a friend), and said that he made himself stop before the thoughts took control. A trigger might be seeing a child on television but he felt confident he could put a stop to the thoughts before they developed further. -- 10 of 16 -- [2026] SASC 12 B Doyle J 9 41 The respondent planned if released to be very careful in monitoring his thoughts and feelings and said he would keep busy ‘doing projects’, including starting a business with Sue (a friend of his late mother), with whom he planned to live. Sue was part of an over 50s club which he intended to join. He accepted he was not likely to receive any significant support from his family. 42 Dr Barnett considered that despite two different sex offender courses there had only been a minimal shift in the respondent’s risk factors. He continued to experience sexually deviant interest in children and his consistent pattern of offending was considered to be evidence of his unwillingness to control his sexual instincts. Dr Barnett was concerned that he had not developed clear plans to address his risk factors, beyond his own report of intended avoidance. She concluded: It is my opinion that currently Mr McRoberts remains a high risk of future sexual offending and that he is unwilling to control his sexual instincts. He was noted to verbally express a desire to abstain from offending, it was considered that were he to be in the position to offend he would be unwilling to control his conduct. As such he continues to pose an appreciable risk to the community. Consideration should be given as to whether sufficient community based measures could be instituted to modify the risk to a more acceptable level, noting that he has not spent time in the community under strict supervision since completing intervention in Victoria and South Australia. 43 Dr Barnett was asked to elaborate upon the measures that she considered might be put in place. In an addendum report Dr Barnett opined that were the respondent to be placed in the community, he would need strict monitoring by the Department for Correctional Servies (‘DCS’) with a particular focus on liming or preventing his contact with children and the guardians of children. Observing that the respondent had shown an ability to befriend and ingratiate himself with parents and guardians of young children, Dr Barnett expressed a concern about his ability to engage in community-based activities, such as men’s groups, social clubs, volunteer work and employment. 44 Dr Barnett went on to say: From the perspective of therapeutic engagement and programs in the community, it was not clear where Mr McRoberts would be residing. If he were based in a country or rural location this would significantly impact on the available services. At a minimum he would require ongoing therapy and engagement with a skilled forensic psychologist with experiences in the management of sex offenders to continue to work through emotion identification, coping skills and distress tolerance. It would also need to incorporate the ongoing addressing of specific risk factors, notably his persistent sexual interest in children. It should be highlighted that such services are hard to find, often incurring an out-of-pocket expense with waiting times which can be extensive. In view of having completed two previous group based sexual offender programs, it would be unlikely that he would be eligible for a further community based treatment program, such as that run by Owenia House. Mr McRoberts would benefit from formal social support such as through Circles of Support and Accountability. Whilst I have a basic theoretical understanding of what such programs offer, I can provide no details regarding intake, eligibility or availability. Mr McRoberts -- 11 of 16 -- [2026] SASC 12 B Doyle J 10 has never had professional supports in the community or people that he could discuss his offending openly with. The development and integration of such supports would be imperative in the mitigation of the risk that Mr McRoberts poses to the community, however it should be noted that this would only minimise the risk to a degree. Mitigating Mr McRoberts risk in the community would need significant input from the Department of Correctional Services with a focus on external controls, limiting access and restriction of personal freedom. 45 Since the oral hearing in this matter, the applicant has informed the Court that a second report writer has now been allocated. 46 It is to be expected, having regard to the delay in allocation, that the report will be prepared as a priority and as soon as can be accommodated by the medical practitioner. Allowing some time for the report’s preparation and the hearing and determination of the indefinite detention application, I proceed on the basis that if an interim detention order is made, it will see the respondent detained for about four or perhaps five months after his forthcoming release date. Contentions 47 The applicant emphasises the respondent’s report to Dr Barnett that he still fantasises about children and his tendency to make excuses for why he might be around children at future events. In these circumstances the applicant contends that the respondent remains motivated to seek out opportunities to engage with children to satisfy his sexual interest. 48 The applicant submits that even the most stringent conditions imposed under an interim supervision order cannot continuously monitor the respondent’s activities to ensure he does not engage in any way with children. 49 The respondent’s counsel submits that: • with the exception of a period of parole in 2007 and the period between his release on supervision in 2020 and his extradition in early 2021, the respondent has spent the last 20 years in custody; • against that background, it is unsatisfactory that (as was the case at the time of hearing) there should be no clarity about the timing of the second report; • during his time in custody the respondent has shown nothing but an eagerness to engage with programs offered to him; • whilst the respondent has acknowledged a continuing interest in children, he should not be penalised for his candour, and it should be noted that he has caveated that acknowledgment by a statement that he stops such thoughts before they go too far; • the respondent’s past statements to the effect he would struggle not to have contact with children in the future should be read in light of his more recent -- 12 of 16 -- [2026] SASC 12 B Doyle J 11 statements to Dr Barnett which it is submitted reflect a resignation about the fact he will not be permitted such contact and a frank recognition that his life will be less fulfilling without children in it; • the assessments of risk in the reports provided are expressed in somewhat abstract terms and they are not tailored to the circumstances that might apply if a supervision order is in place; • the respondent’s past offending, whilst self-evidently of the most serious kind, generally involved a level of familiarity and trust, and an element of grooming. An abuse of position in a similar way should be able to be guarded against by the conditions of an interim supervision order; and • the respondent’s period of non-offending in Victoria under supervision supports the proposition that he is willing and able to control his instincts whilst subject to supervision. 50 Subsequently to the hearing, and without opposition, the respondent has furnished an affidavit sworn by the support person to whom the respondent had referred, named Sue.3 51 By reason of her relationship with the respondent’s late mother, and with an understanding of the offences for which the respondent has been convicted, she is prepared to provide accommodation to the respondent at her northern suburbs residence. She has five grandchildren and three great grandchildren, but says she would not permit anyone under 18 years of age to attend her home and would call the police if she became concerned about the respondent’s behaviours. Consideration 52 I summarised the approach that I consider should be taken to an application for an indefinite detention order and, relatedly, an interim detention order, in Attorney-General (SA) v DO.4 53 In deciding whether to make an interim order, it is appropriate first to consider whether there is a real or serious question to be tried that the respondent is unwilling to control his sexual instincts, within the meaning of s 57(1) of the Sentencing Act. 54 If so, a range of considerations may then bear upon whether the discretion to impose an order should be exercised, with the task being informed by the paramount consideration of the safety of the community. 55 On the material before me, the question whether there is a significant risk that the respondent would, if presented with an opportunity to commit a relevant offence, fail to exercise appropriate control over his sexual instincts, is not 3 For the sake of the deponent’s privacy, her full name has not been set out. 4 [2026] SASC 10 at [6]-[20]. -- 13 of 16 -- [2026] SASC 12 B Doyle J 12 straightforward. That question will have to be resolved with an appreciation of the effect upon the respondent of any supervision order terms or other restrictions that may apply to him over the foreseeable future. 56 On one hand, it is true that the respondent has not engaged in sexual offending for nearly 20 years, has been a co-operative participant in all treatment offered to him in custody, and has developed some insights into his behaviour and risks. Whilst still plagued by sexually deviant attraction to pre-pubescent boys, and disheartened by the notion that he may have to avoid any contact with children, he appears to want to avoid future offending. He was able to avoid offending for several months under supervision in Victoria. 57 On the other hand, it appears (although this was not explored in detail before me) that the restrictions applicable to the respondent in Victoria were able to provide a relatively foolproof assurance that the respondent would not encounter young people in the community whilst unaccompanied. Further, whilst some insight has been shown, the respondent still suffers cognitive distortions. For instance, his acceptance that children cannot consent to sexual offending is somewhat undermined by an apparently persistent belief that the victims could in fact have said so if they were not prepared to participate. 58 There is force in the submission that the respondent’s pattern of offending exhibits a pattern of grooming which may be difficult for the respondent to repeat if subject to strict monitoring and restrictions on contact with children. However, against this, the respondent has assaulted a range of victims, and the gravity of the offending is at the high end. It is suggestive of a strong sexual interest in children and may be seen to involve a degree of opportunism. That he has been able to satisfy that interest in the past by prolonged contact with victims does not itself mean that, even if opportunities are more limited, they will not be pursued at some stage. 59 Based on the material before me, I consider that there is a serious question to be tried that even if subject to supervision, there is a significant risk that if an opportunity presents, the respondent will not appropriately control his sexual instincts. 60 However, it does not automatically follow that an interim detention order must be made. A number of competing considerations bear upon whether to impose an interim detention order, or to instead permit the respondent’s supervised release in the community for a period of around four months. 61 The delay of around six months in allocating the respondent’s matter to a second medical practitioner is a regrettable reflection of stretched resources. However, whilst the result is that the underlying application will likely take nearly a year to resolve, it should not obscure the more relevant circumstance that the interim order will see the respondent detained for a period of about four or perhaps five months after his release date. -- 14 of 16 -- [2026] SASC 12 B Doyle J 13 62 Whilst it will ultimately be a matter for a DCS officer to confirm, it does appear that the respondent would have stable and suitable accommodation available to him for that time with a person who has expressed a commitment to assist with avoiding the respondent’s contact with children. There is, of course, a risk that she may not prove capable of providing that assistance. As well, she cannot of course vouch for the respondent’s conduct or associations when he is not at the residence. But the support of a person known to the respondent is something. 63 The proposed conditions of the interim supervision order will see the respondent subject to a curfew. During daylight hours, he will be subject to conditions that restrict his association with young people and preclude him traveling within 50 metres of schools and other places children are regularly present. He will be subject to various other restrictions and obligations including as to any work he may pursue and any internet access. 64 Plainly those restrictions, coupled with electronic monitoring, cannot eliminate the possibility of the respondent coming into contact with children, whether innocently or by design. They are likely, however, to make sustained or prolonged contact with children very difficult, at least without a relatively high degree of deception and sophistication. The respondent does not have a history of offending strangers with whom he has not cultivated a relationship of some kind. Nor does he have a history of drug use or other highly impulsive conduct. 65 It seems to me that in those circumstances, the risk of the respondent engaging in a sexual offence for a period of approximately four months whilst closely supervised and whilst apparently genuinely motivated to avoid re- offending (and, no doubt, motivated to put his best foot forward on the substantive application) is relatively low. He appears to present no generalised risk of non- sexual violence or other criminal conduct.5 66 Notwithstanding the paramount consideration which influences (but, given the drastic nature of preventative detention, cannot control) the discretion to impose an interim detention order, I have decided that on the material presently before me I should not make an interim detention order. 67 Whilst the result of this decision will provide the respondent a brief opportunity to demonstrate a period of compliant behaviour outside custody, it by no means follows that if he does not re-offend during that period, he can be assured that the substantive application for indefinite detention will fail. 68 First, the Court will have additional evidence before it, in the form of the second report. Secondly, it may be that any questioning of the witnesses will shed greater light on the risk assessments that have been made, and which the Court must ultimately make. Thirdly, when considering the substantive application, the Court will need to consider the respondent’s risk profile on an ongoing basis, 5 cf. Attorney-General (SA) v DO [2026] SASC 10 at [39]. -- 15 of 16 -- [2026] SASC 12 B Doyle J 14 catering for the reality that the respondent cannot reside with an elderly friend forever, allowing that he is likely to wish to explore employment and other pursuits over the longer term, and recognising that whilst further orders can be made, extended supervision orders have a limited duration. Importantly, a longer period in the community, even subject to supervision, may provide the respondent a greater facility to engage in grooming behaviour by brief but repetitive interactions with children. These are matters for another day. 69 I refuse the application for an interim detention order. Subject to any further submissions about the precise terms, I will impose an interim supervision order requiring, amongst other things, electronic monitoring, a curfew and the other association restrictions canvassed in these reasons. I would grant the applicant liberty to apply to make a further application for an interim detention order in light of any alteration to the risk profile that may be suggested by a failure to comply with the conditions of the interim supervision order. 70 Of course, if the respondent does not comply with the interim supervision order, there may also be consequences including detention pursuant to the provisions of the HRO Act. -- 16 of 16 --